On 05/22/15 12:27, David Lamparter wrote: > My uninformed opinion is that incorporating function names and #include > statements does not make something a derivative work.
... and then linking to it? That's central to the matter, and makes it very much different than the Oracle/Google problem. It's not just copying an API. If it were true, though, that creating build, link, and run-time dependencies on a GPL library doesn't automatically trip over clause 2, then that would be simply wonderful for those making non-GPL software. It would also, interestingly, mean that there's no reason at all to have an LGPL, because the lesser license doesn't permit anything extra; they wrote the "work that uses the Library" clause for no reason. You're (of course) right that unmodified files can't be touched, but Paul's right that touching them generally requires some kind of license for his work unless the changes are "trivial." > P.S.: I find it rather amusing that Paul keeps citing his historical > advice from lawyers at Sun. If it doesn't hold up in court, I'd say > that wasn't "advice" as much as wishful thinking, on Sun/Oracle's end. Sun's lawyers were (like all lawyers) conservative in their advice. My experience with Sun's lawyers was that the answer to nearly all "can I ..." questions was simply "no." You had to dive into risk/benefit to get more details. :-/ -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
